ArticleEJIFCC2013
Clinical Application of Pharmacogenetics: Where are We Now?
Article in EJIFCC, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation ofJournal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Pharmacogenomic Testing Service through Community Pharmacy in the Netherlands: Results from an Early Service Evaluation.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Influence of metabolic profiles on the safety of drug therapy in routine care in Germany: protocol of the cohort study EMPAR.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated With Clopidogrel in a Young Male Patient.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has the potential to improve drug therapy in an individual by informing appropriate drug dosing or drug selection in order to maximize efficacy and safety. Although multiple studies have illustrated the potential benefits of such testing when applied to specific drugs across a broad range of therapy areas, the uptake of PGx testing in routine clinical practice has been relatively limited. Implementation appears to be hampered by the absence of sufficiently strong evidence linking the results of testing with actionable benefits in terms of clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, there are now adequate data to allow dosing recommendations as have been developed by bodies including the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) in several settings, including TPMT/thiopurines, CYP2C19/clopidogrel, CYP2D6/codeine, VKORC1-CYP2C9/warfarin, HLA-B*5701/abacavir, SLCO1B1/simvastatin and HLAB*5801/allopurinol. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT) have also recently initiated surveys in order to better understand the extent of, and the role played by, PGx testing in clinical practice. This should help identify where further training and education may be beneficial. To this end, in collaboration with ESPT, the IFCC Pharmacogenetic Laboratory Network has now been formed, with the aim of improving the uptake and quality of PGx testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27683445PMC4975184What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.